(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bechoros 10

BECHOROS 7-10 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.



(a) Rabah now proves from the Beraisa (where Rebbi Shimon includes Peter Chamor in the list of things that are not a food, but precludes Basar be'Chalav, because one is able to feed it to Nochrim) - Rebbi Shimon must agree that a Peter Chamor that had its neck broken is Asur be'Hana'ah, because otherwise, he ought to have listed it with Basar be'Chalav.

(b) To refute Rabah's proof, we establish the Beraisa - when the owner did not have in mind to eat it (otherwise, Rebbi Shimon would indeed have done so).

(c) The Rabbanan (Amora'im) explained in front of Rav Sheishes that the Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Shimon, because they hold 'Isuro Chishuvo', meaning - that a Peter Chamor does not require Machshavah, since the Isur renders it a food (because the fact that the Torah forbids it is a sure sign that it must be edible to Nochrim).

(a) The Mishnah in Taharos lists thirteen things in connection with Nivlas Of Tahor, one of them, that it requires Machshavah (another that it does not require Hechsher). The problem with this is - that since the Torah forbids Nivlas Of Tahor, the Rabbanan ought to say there too 'Isuro Chishuvo', and it ought not to require Machshavah.

(b) The Mishnah in Uktzin says the same about the Neveilah of a Beheimah Temei'ah anywhere and Nivlas Of Tahor and (Cheilev [this does not appear in the Mishnah in Uktzin] in the villages. The Tana restricts the latter to villages, but not the former - because a. whereas all Nochrim tend to consider the Neveilah of a Beheimah Temei'ah disgusting, those who live in towns (who are generally more wealthy than those who live in villages), do eat Nivlas Of Tahor (which do not therefore require Machshavah to render it a food), and b. because the latter possesses only one prohibition for a Yisrael, the former possesses two.

(c) We have the same problem with the Rabbanan from this Mishnah as we just had from the previous one, both of which we solve - by establishing their author as Rebbi Shimon.

(a) Another Mishnah in Uktzin rules that Nivlas Beheimah Tehorah and Nivlas Of ha'Tahor and Cheilev (Shechutah) in the market-places (i.e. in town) require neither Machshavah nor Hechsher. Hechsher is not required in ...
1. ... all the current cases of Neveilah - because whatever stands to be Metamei a stringent Tum'ah at some stage (to be Metamei Adam ve'Keilim) does not require Hechsher.
2. ... the case of Cheilev (Shechutah) - because the Shechitah (which rendered the animal a food, did the same for the Cheilev).
(b) This only applies in the market-place - where the Shechitah renders the Cheilev a food automatically, but not the villages, where the people do not generally eat the fat.

(c) Nivlas Beheimah Tehorah does not require Machshavah (like Nivlas Beheimah Temei'ah does) - a. because it is not disgusting in the eyes of Nochrim (like Nivlas Beheimah Temei'ah), and b. as opposed to Nivlas Of Tamei, there is only one prohibition as regards a Yisrael.

(d) Here again, we are faced with the same problem regarding Isuro Chishuvo, from the implication (that Nivlas Beheimah Temei'ah does require Machshavah). We cannot establish the author as Rebbi Shimon, like we did in the previous cases - because Rebbi Shimon speaks in the Seifa (implying that he is not the author of the Reisha).

(a) Rebbi Shimon rules that the Neveilah of a camel, a hare, a rabbit and a pig - require neither Machshavah nor Hechsher ...

(b) ... because they all have at least one Siman Taharah.

(c) We have now proved from the Reisha of this last Mishnah - that not even the Rabbanan hold 'Isuro Chishuvo'.

(a) Rava therefore establishes the Rabbanan in the Beraisa (who list Pidyon Peter Chamor as a food) - where the owner Shechted the animal in order to practice Hilchos Shechitah (and that is what renders it a food [even without a Machshavah]).

(b) Rava needs to say that he Shechted it to practice Shechitah- because if he Shechted it S'tam, then even Rebbi Shimon would agree that it is a food.

(c) And the basis of their Machlokes is - whether a Shechitah that one performs in order to practice is considered a Shechitah (like one that is performed to prepare the animal for eating [the Rabbanan]) or not (Rebbi Shimon).




(a) Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa, quoting Nimus (the brother of Rebbi Yehoshua ha'Garsi), rules that if someone Shechts a raven in order to practice Shechitah - the blood of the Shechitah is Machshir ...

(b) ... the seeds on which it falls.

(c) Rebbi Elazar disagrees. He holds that the blood of Shechitah is always Machshir, by which he means - even the bird itself.

(d) And we suggest that the basis of their Machlokes is - whether 'Isuro Choshvo' (Rebbi Elazar) or not (Rebbi Yossi quoting Nimus).

(a) We conclude however, that even Rebbi Elazar does not hold 'Isuro Chishuvo', and the reason that the Shechitah of the raven is Machshir it (even without Machshavah) is - because the raven has two Simnei Taharah ...

(b) ... and we know that Simnei Taharah affect the status of the animal, because that is what Rebbi Shimon says in the Seifa of the Mishnah in Uktzin (as we learned earlier).

(c) If that is the reason, the problem with the case presented by the Beraisa is - why the Tana needs to present it as 'Shechting to practice'; why did he not rather present a case where he Shechted without meaning to do so (Lehis'asek, where he did not even intend to Shecht) to teach us that even such a Shechitah is Machshir?

(d) And we answer - that the Tana does so on account of Nimus, to teach us that even a Shechitah that he performed intentionally is not Machshir.

(e) We cite this Beraisa - to prove that, according to Rava's interpretation of the Machlokes between the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon, which we discussed on the previous Amud, the Rabbanan hold like Nimus and Rebbi Shimon, like Rebbi Elazar.

(a) Abaye asks from a Beraisa, which discusses the Din of the Peter Chamor in the event that the owner refuses to redeem it. He is obligated to - cut its neck with a carving knife and bury it.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah adds 've'Asur be'Hana'ah'. Rebbi Shimon - says 'Mutar'.

(c) This Beraisa poses a Kashya on Rabah - who said earlier that Rebbi Shimon concedes that after the donkey's neck is broken, it is Asur be'Hana'ah.

(d) So we amend the Beraisa to read - 'u'me'Chayim Asur be'Hana'ah ... Rebbi Shimon Matir'.

(a) The problem with this explanation is from the Seifa, where the Tana forbids
1. ... killing the donkey with a cane, a spade or saw.
2. ... placing it in a locked room and letting it die by itself.
(b) And he cites Rebbi Yehudah, who forbids shearing it or working with it. Rebbi Shimon - permits it.

(c) Assuming that they both speak whilst the donkey is still alive, we reconcile the Seifa with the Reisha - by establishing the Reisha by Hana'as Damav (the Seifa is in any event speaking about Hana'as ha'Guf) ...

(d) ... meaning - for example, that the owner rented it out. (e) Having taught us the Machlokes in ...

1. ... the Reisha, the Tana needed to repeat it in the Seifa, to teach us that Rebbi Shimon permits even Hana'as Damav.
2. ... the Seifa, he needed to repeat it in the Reisha, to teach us that Rebbi Yehudah forbids even Hana'as Gufo.
(a) Initially, Rav Nachman, quoting Rabah bar Avuhah, who agrees with Rabah, cites the source for that ... as a Beraisa, where the Tana learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Arifah" "Arifah" from Eglah Arufah - that just as the latter is Asur be'Hana'ah after its death, so too, is the former.

(b) Rav Nachman tries to prove from there - that the author must be Rebbi Shimon - who permits the donkey be'Hana'ah during its lifetime and who therefore needs a Pasuk to teach us that it becomes Asur after it dies, just like Rabah said.

(c) Rav Sheishes rejects Rav Nachman's proof, by arguing that even according to Rebbi Yehudah, who already forbade the donkey whilst it was alive, the Tana would need to teach us that it remains Asur when it is dead - because we would otherwise have thought that breaking its neck replaces the redemption of the lamb, permitting the donkey be'Hana'ah just as the lamb would have done.

(d) So Rav Nachman tries to prove it from a Beraisa learned by Levi, which ascribes the obligation of cutting the donkey's neck - to the fact that 'he caused the Kohen to lose (therefore he deserves to lose)'.

(a) Rav Nachman tries to prove from there that the author must be Rebbi Shimon - because, according to Rebbi Yehudah, the donkey was already forbidden whilst it was alive, and he would not be losing anything after its death.

(b) We reconcile the Beraisa with ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah - by citing 'P'seida de'Beini Beini', which means that as long as the donkey's neck has not been broken, it can always be redeemed by a lamb, so that when it dies, the owner loses the balance (between the donkey and the lamb).
2. ... Rebbi Shimon, even if he permits the donkey be'Hana'ah after its death - because in any event, he will lose the balance between the live donkey and the dead one.
(c) Resh Lakish too, holds like Rabah and Rav Nachman. Rebbi Yochanan (or Rebbi Elazar) says - that Rebbi Shimon argues after the donkey's death and permits it be'Hana'ah, just like he does during its lifetime.
(a) Others cite Rav Nachman with regard to the Mishnah in Kidushin 'ha'Mekadesh be'Peter Chamor, Einah Mekudeshes'. We think that the author cannot be Rebbi Shimon - because he permits a Peter Chamor be'Hana'ah, so why should he not be able to betroth a woman with it?

(b) To refute this suggestion, Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah establishes the Mishnah - by a Peter Chamor whose neck has been broken, even according to Rebbi Shimon, who concedes that the donkey then becomes Asur, as we explained.

(c) In the second Lashon, we ask that the Mishnah appears to go neither like Rebbi Shimon nor like Rebbi Yehudah - according to whom the donkey is at least worth to the owner (and to the woman) the balance between itself and the lamb with which it is redeemed.

(d) Rabah bar Avuhah Amar Rav therefore establishes the Mishnah in Kidushin (like Rebbi Yehudah this time) - where the donkey is worth only a Shekel (i.e. a Sela), which is the minimum value of the lamb with which it is redeemed (as we shall now see), in which case it is worth nothing.

(a) Rav equates Rebbi Yehudah with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa. The Tana Kama learns from the word "Tifdeh" from the two times that the Torah writes in Bo and in Ki Sisa "u'Feter Chamor Tifdeh be'Seh" - a. "Tifdeh", 'Miyad'; b. "Tifdeh", 'Kol she'Hu' (that the owner may redeem it for a lamb immediately, and that the lamb may be worth no more than a Kol she'Hu).

(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the Tana Kama's second ruling. He requires the lamb to be worth at least a Shekel.

(c) If not for "Tifdeh" "Tifdeh", we would have learned from the Pasuk "es Bechor ha'Adam ve'es Bechor ha'Beheimah Tifdeh" - that just as a Bechor Adam can only be redeemed after thirty days and for not less than five Sela'im, so too Pidyon Peter Chamor.

(a) 'Mah Nafshach', we ask - if Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah holds of the Hekesh to Bechor Adam, then the lamb ought to be worth at least five Shekalim (and not just one), and if he does not, then where does he derive the one Shekel from?

(b) As we conclude, he does not learn from Bechor Adam - but from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Chol Erk'cha Yih'yeh be'Shekel ha'Kodesh", which refers to this Halachah.

(c) According to the Rabbanan, the Pasuk "ve'Chol Erk'cha ... " refers - to someone who declares 'Erki Alai', and does not have the money to pay his full Erech. He is assessed by the Kohen as to how much he is able to pay, and the Torah is teaching us here, that the Kohen may not assess him for less than one Shekel.

(a) Rav Nachman rules like the Rabbanan, and according to Rav Yosef, this includes even a Petruza worth a Danka - which means a particularly weak lamb that is worth only a sixth of a Zuz.

(b) It is not at all obvious - that 'Kol she'Hu' includes an animal that is worth quite so little or that is quite so weak.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,